2012
FEB 29
Please visit the following:http://www.visumglobal.co.uk(Premier provider of management consultancy services and much more)
Blog on Africa:http://www.africa21stcentury.blogspot.comBlog on Zambian Economics:http//:www.zambian-economist.com
THE SANDS OF TIME: THE SYRIAN STALEMATE (PART 3 OF THE SAND OF TIME SERIES ON SYRIA)
The sole purpose of the resolution was to address the ever deepening crisis in Syria and prevent a growing threatto the region as whole. The text of the resolution simply supported an Arab League plan that Bashar and hisinner circle had agreed to during the Arab League inspection. In principle the Bashar administration had agreedwith the Arab League inspectors to cease fire and promised a peaceful resolution and dialogue with theopposition. An overwhelming support for the Arab League plan by all permanent members of the UN SecurityCouncil would have given the UN general assembly a unified authority to impose further requirements andsanctions upon the Bashar regime in the event that the regime failed to comply. As of 29
th
February 2012, it isreasonable to describe the stage of the conflict in Syria as nothing other than a brutal stalemate with the armedopposition militia on one side, the government military hell bent on crushing them on the other and unarmed anddesperate civilians caught in the middle. There are many reasons for this (1) the opposition seem to be wellorganised in military terms compared to a few months ago and this could be as a result of increased financing,defections from the national army and perhaps an influx of volunteers from surrounding Arab countries, and (2)the public disagreements between power brokers has directly given confidence to each side that they are in astronger position to emerge victorious as the conflict rages on thus unwilling to come to the negotiating table, (3)the opposition feel the sense of history on their side vis a vie the outcome of other similar revolutions inneighbouring countries and it is in their interest not to give ground, and on the other hand (4) the regime senses ithas now bought more time to land that blow and end the insurrection decisively. However, what is transparent isthat NATO, EU, and some Arab League members appear to side with the opposition while China, Iran andRussia are perhaps on the side of the Bashar regime but in truth nobody really knows who is on which side andwhy. Governments have always been notoriously good at saying one thing in public and doing another thing inprivate. The only people who are truly divided in support are Syrian people. What is also evident is that theSyrian conflict has exposed some deep divisions within the UN system and raised fundamental questionsregarding the usefulness and credibility of the UN an organ especially its operation of the veto system andcommitment to world peace.The proponents argue that the veto system is designed for that reason so that there can never be unilateralaction, and can point to numerous instances where the veto system has been used without controversy.Furthermore, the UN has justified it existence through its worthwhile global efforts and has prevent numerouswars, and thus it is an indispensable part of human existence and a positive platform for international dialogueand cooperation. Opponents argue that it is not the idea of the UN that is bad it is the fundamental flawsinherent in its design that has made the UN operationally inefficient. The UN has remained a toothless bull dogwhich often barks slowly, never bites and only operates in the interest of powerful nations and institutions.Therefore, the stalemate in Syria is symptomatic of an inept system that has outlived its usefulness and could dowith a complete overhaul. Furthermore, opponents view the UN as an institution that often crawls to a unifiedposition whenever the required action appear to conflict the vested interests of powerful permanent members of the Security Council. Opponents point to examples such as the failure to prevent the Rwanda genocide whicheventually claimed over one million lives, opponents argue that the UN stood aside while thousands of civilianswere massacred in Bosnia, Cambodia and Vietnam, what about the failure to present a unified voice againstapartheid and the UN
’
s inability to stop the conflict in Congo despite having the largest peace keeping force onthe ground, then there are operational failures in Sudan (the Darfur conflict), East Timor, Sierra Leone, the UN
2012
FEB 29
Please visit the following:http://www.visumglobal.co.uk(Premier provider of management consultancy services and much more)
Blog on Africa:http://www.africa21stcentury.blogspot.comBlog on Zambian Economics:http//:www.zambian-economist.com
stood aside in Somalia and by doing so effectively allowed the war lords to plunge Somalia into a living nightmareand the most lawless country the planet has ever seen. For opponent there is enough evidence to overhaul thesystem and make it more operationally efficient but the stumbling block has been the self interests of powerfulnations. Opponents also point to the fact that dictators, war lords and oppressive regimes understand that theUN is inept and lacks any real power to enforce anything and thus are completely free to do whatever they want.The UN is in a difficult situation due to its non interference policy which seems to be at odds with the speed atwhich the UN got involved in Libya via NATO and opponents argue that it was purely done to protect thesupply of Libyan oil and gas to powerful nations. In addition Colonel Gaddafi had a well publicised lukewarmrelationship with his Arab comrades and his rhetoric often angered westerners, his growing influence in subSahara and the fear of the conflict spilling into the European backyard prompted the UN to take action quickly.However, contrast that with the UN position on Zimbabwe, Bahrain, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, etc. How manylives would it take for the UN to interfere and call it civilian protection in Syria? It is also interesting to notethat some of the members of the Arab League that tabled a resolution on Syrian are not exactly what one mightcall civilian governments with good records on gender equality, rule of law, political morality, transparency, etc.By 29
th
February 2012, the city of Homs had been under constant attack for 23 days straight and the UN ownreport indicated that over 7500 civilians had died so far but one can only assume that this was only the verifiablebody count that excludes executions, hidden mass graves and disappearances. Often in such conflicts true figuresare always five times the reported amount (there is no independent way to verify the true number of victims).There is no doubt that Gaddafi was a tyrant but how is he any different from Bashar Al-Assad, and otherdictators on the planet that kill their own citizen be it through secret police murders, government sponsoredterrorism, force imprisonment of political opponents and those who express opposing views, withdraw of resourcesand leaving defenceless people to die in thousands or directly assault on civilians.The other reason for the stalemate could perhaps be found by solving the Bear, the Eagle, the Lion, the Roosterand the Dragon conundrum. Why would the Bear and the Dragon refuse to play ball given that the Eagle, theRooster, the Lion and all other guests on the table were willing to accept a revised simpler resolution that did notimpose much on the Assad apart from committing to a time frame and sticking to the proposal? There are anumber of possible reasons that includes the possibility that Assad allowed the Arab League to carry out theassessments knowing to well that the process will culminate in a resolution and given that scenario Russia andChina would play ball and veto the plan. In essence it was just a double bluff by the Bashar regime. The secondreason could be that Russia and China refused because it meant losing leverage in the Middle East given that
Russia’s only naval base in the Middle East is in Syria and
Russia is the number one supplier of weapons to Syria.China on the other hand has had a long standing business and political relations with Syria. The third reasoncould be that it was one way for Russia and China to announce to the world that the west no longer rules theroost and thus can no longer be compelled to play along anymore. The last time the Bear and the Dragon playedalong, NATO went beyond the rules of the game i.e. mandate of resolution 1973 in Libya and thus could not betrusted again. The fourth reason could very well be that perhaps they know something the rest of us mortals
don’t
so the only way is for them to use the veto to openly reject the plan. It is also evident that Russia andChina are one of the fastest growing economies in the world and one can only assume that if you have an ambitionto be the best and remain the best you need all the friends you can get and it is particularly vital if such a friendhas oil and gas reserves. The fifth reason could be that any resolution would have made Assad feel cornered and
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
The Sands of Time - The Syrian Stalemate - Part 3
453
Reads
0
Readcasts
585
Embed Views
Get Scribd Mobile
To get Scribd mobile enter your number and we'll send you a link to the Scribd app for iPhone & Android.We've sent a link to the Scribd app. If you didn't receive it, try again.
We'll never share your phone number.
More From This User
Notes
Load more
